[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Didnt you just admit the big bang is a trust us scenario? I don't understand at all your comment about dropping something from a sub, because buoyancy itself completely defies gravity. Things that are less dense than water rise, things that are more dense drop. A theory, by definition, not a law, of gravitation has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't defy anything.  Buoyancy is a force like any other.  It pushes less dense objects up or, more accurafely, more dense objects down.  Its a product of gravitation.  Lets take wood and water.  They both are being pulled down at the same rate.  However, the water is denser so its mass can move the wood against gravity to get closer to the surface.  The wood moves out of the way of the water until its floating on top.

A submarine is denser than water.  FYI.  How does that defy your logic?

Why is buoyancy defined as something that only affects object in liquid water? Our atmosphere is a fluid just as much as a body of water is.

Never said otherwise.
Just easier to see in water than air.

You don't see buoyancy. You observe it and you feel it. Very similar to "gravity." So explain to me why buoyancy is any different from the effect we feel known as gravity?

[Lord Dave]

Didnt you just admit the big bang is a trust us scenario? I don't understand at all your comment about dropping something from a sub, because buoyancy itself completely defies gravity. Things that are less dense than water rise, things that are more dense drop. A theory, by definition, not a law, of gravitation has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't defy anything.  Buoyancy is a force like any other.  It pushes less dense objects up or, more accurafely, more dense objects down.  Its a product of gravitation.  Lets take wood and water.  They both are being pulled down at the same rate.  However, the water is denser so its mass can move the wood against gravity to get closer to the surface.  The wood moves out of the way of the water until its floating on top.

A submarine is denser than water.  FYI.  How does that defy your logic?

Why is buoyancy defined as something that only affects object in liquid water? Our atmosphere is a fluid just as much as a body of water is.

Never said otherwise.
Just easier to see in water than air.

You don't see buoyancy. You observe it and you feel it. Very similar to "gravity." So explain to me why buoyancy is any different from the effect we feel known as gravity?

Because Buoyancy relies on a medium.  Gravity does not.  Also, the force of Buoyancy must be greater than the force of gravity for anything to change.  A drop of something heavier than water won't make it sink, for example, in the ocean.  Likewise, if you have a large enough piece of wood, it will sink.  (See wooden ships at the bottom of the ocean)

And finally:
If you have a tube of air and a brick, the suck out all the air in the tube, why isn't the brick floating?  What is keeping it "down" since there isn't anything inside the tube for the brick to sink in.  Nothing holding it down.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Why is buoyancy defined as something that only affects object in liquid water? Our atmosphere is a fluid just as much as a body of water is.

Never said otherwise.
Just easier to see in water than air.

You don't see buoyancy. You observe it and you feel it. Very similar to "gravity." So explain to me why buoyancy is any different from the effect we feel known as gravity?
[/quote]

Because Buoyancy relies on a medium.  Gravity does not.  Also, the force of Buoyancy must be greater than the force of gravity for anything to change.  A drop of something heavier than water won't make it sink, for example, in the ocean.  Likewise, if you have a large enough piece of wood, it will sink.  (See wooden ships at the bottom of the ocean)

And finally:
If you have a tube of air and a brick, the suck out all the air in the tube, why isn't the brick floating?  What is keeping it "down" since there isn't anything inside the tube for the brick to sink in.  Nothing holding it down.
[/quote]

Are you saying that our atmosphere, the mix of gases oxygen, nitrogen and argon, acting as a fluid, isn't a medium?

[Lord Dave]

Because Buoyancy relies on a medium.  Gravity does not.  Also, the force of Buoyancy must be greater than the force of gravity for anything to change.  A drop of something heavier than water won't make it sink, for example, in the ocean.  Likewise, if you have a large enough piece of wood, it will sink.  (See wooden ships at the bottom of the ocean)

And finally:
If you have a tube of air and a brick, the suck out all the air in the tube, why isn't the brick floating?  What is keeping it "down" since there isn't anything inside the tube for the brick to sink in.  Nothing holding it down.

Are you saying that our atmosphere, the mix of gases oxygen, nitrogen and argon, acting as a fluid, isn't a medium?

On the contrary:
I'm saying that when you REMOVE the atmosphere, the object should be weightless if Buoyancy is all that keeps it from floating.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Is there any proof that anything floats in a vacuum? Besides our space program's insistence that that's what happens when we leave earth's atmosphere? Even a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum. "Something" is denser than "nothing."

Also how long can we pretend that the "space" that occupies a vacuum is nothing? How can we say that the space between a nucleus of an atom and an electron is nothing? The nature of a vacuum is to draw matter to it, to fill the "void." If space was nothing, the entire universe should compress to be as small as it possible could. It's not gravity that keeps these things distant, it's electromagnetic force.

[Lord Dave]

Is there any proof that anything floats in a vacuum? Besides our space program's insistence that that's what happens when we leave earth's atmosphere? Even a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum. "Something" is denser than "nothing."

Also how long can we pretend that the "space" that occupies a vacuum is nothing? How can we say that the space between a nucleus of an atom and an electron is nothing? The nature of a vacuum is to draw matter to it, to fill the "void." If space was nothing, the entire universe should compress to be as small as it possible could. It's not gravity that keeps these things distant, it's electromagnetic force.

Either way, this discussion is way off topic and I will ask a moderator to move it. Thanks for getting me to participate in the derailing of my own thread.

Nothing should float in a vaccum.  But by your logic of buoyancy instead of gravity, it would.

[Rama Set]

Is there any proof that anything floats in a vacuum? Besides our space program's insistence that that's what happens when we leave earth's atmosphere? Even a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum. "Something" is denser than "nothing."

No one except TV and movies claim anything floats in a vaccum.  The force of gravity varies with your proximity to a large source of mass/energy/momentum.  People and objects on the ISS appear float because of their orbital velocity causing it to be in a constant state of free fall.

Also how long can we pretend that the "space" that occupies a vacuum is nothing? How can we say that the space between a nucleus of an atom and an electron is nothing? The nature of a vacuum is to draw matter to it, to fill the "void." If space was nothing, the entire universe should compress to be as small as it possible could. It's not gravity that keeps these things distant, it's electromagnetic force.

Nature strives for equilibrium of forces and does not particularly care about the distribution of matter although it should be noted that every large scale survey of the visible universe shows the distribution of matter to be fairly even and homogenous.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

No one except TV and movies claim anything floats in a vaccum.  The force of gravity varies with your proximity to a large source of mass/energy/momentum.  People and objects on the ISS appear float because of their orbital velocity causing it to be in a constant state of free fall.

Nature strives for equilibrium of forces and does not particularly care about the distribution of matter although it should be noted that every large scale survey of the visible universe shows the distribution of matter to be fairly even and homogenous.

So how do you explain "space walks?" Is it that the ISS isn't moving at 17,000 mph? That, because of their proximity they appear to just float near it? Is the gravity of the ISS enough to hold an astronaut close by, instead of him being hopelessly left behind?

I can almost buy that an astronaut inside would hold the momentum and not be affected by the sheer supposed speed of the craft, kind've like being on a fast moving train or something... but if I was anywhere outside the train, dangling by a cable, I don't think I would be as calm as this guy:

https://twitter.com/AstroRM/status/415955599700946944

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution. I'm amazed at how many smart people there are that seem to deactivate their critical thinking faculties when it comes to accepting faith based science.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

No one except TV and movies claim anything floats in a vaccum.  The force of gravity varies with your proximity to a large source of mass/energy/momentum.  People and objects on the ISS appear float because of their orbital velocity causing it to be in a constant state of free fall.

Nature strives for equilibrium of forces and does not particularly care about the distribution of matter although it should be noted that every large scale survey of the visible universe shows the distribution of matter to be fairly even and homogenous.

So how do you explain "space walks?" Is it that the ISS isn't moving at 17,000 mph? That, because of their proximity they appear to just float near it? Is the gravity of the ISS enough to hold an astronaut close by, instead of him being hopelessly left behind?

I can almost buy that an astronaut inside would hold the momentum and not be affected by the sheer supposed speed of the craft, kind've like being on a fast moving train or something... but if I was anywhere outside the train, dangling by a cable, I don't think I would be as calm as this guy:

https://twitter.com/AstroRM/status/415955599700946944

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution. I'm amazed at how many smart people there are that seem to deactivate their critical thinking faculties when it comes to accepting faith based science.

The critical phrase here is "smart people" that is opposed to "think they're smart people", and the thing about common sense (as has probably been said) It's not that common, the fact you can't get your head around these subjects is just a hint that you are out of your depth shouting at the life guards they are pussies for having floatation boards.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

No one except TV and movies claim anything floats in a vaccum.  The force of gravity varies with your proximity to a large source of mass/energy/momentum.  People and objects on the ISS appear float because of their orbital velocity causing it to be in a constant state of free fall.

Nature strives for equilibrium of forces and does not particularly care about the distribution of matter although it should be noted that every large scale survey of the visible universe shows the distribution of matter to be fairly even and homogenous.

So how do you explain "space walks?" Is it that the ISS isn't moving at 17,000 mph? That, because of their proximity they appear to just float near it? Is the gravity of the ISS enough to hold an astronaut close by, instead of him being hopelessly left behind?

I can almost buy that an astronaut inside would hold the momentum and not be affected by the sheer supposed speed of the craft, kind've like being on a fast moving train or something... but if I was anywhere outside the train, dangling by a cable, I don't think I would be as calm as this guy:

https://twitter.com/AstroRM/status/415955599700946944

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution. I'm amazed at how many smart people there are that seem to deactivate their critical thinking faculties when it comes to accepting faith based science.

The critical phrase here is "smart people" that is opposed to "think they're smart people", and the thing about common sense (as has probably been said) It's not that common, the fact you can't get your head around these subjects is just a hint that you are out of your depth shouting at the life guards they are pussies for having floatation boards.

That's your opinion, and you know what's colloquially said about those.

[andruszkow]

No one except TV and movies claim anything floats in a vaccum.  The force of gravity varies with your proximity to a large source of mass/energy/momentum.  People and objects on the ISS appear float because of their orbital velocity causing it to be in a constant state of free fall.

Nature strives for equilibrium of forces and does not particularly care about the distribution of matter although it should be noted that every large scale survey of the visible universe shows the distribution of matter to be fairly even and homogenous.

So how do you explain "space walks?" Is it that the ISS isn't moving at 17,000 mph? That, because of their proximity they appear to just float near it? Is the gravity of the ISS enough to hold an astronaut close by, instead of him being hopelessly left behind?

I can almost buy that an astronaut inside would hold the momentum and not be affected by the sheer supposed speed of the craft, kind've like being on a fast moving train or something... but if I was anywhere outside the train, dangling by a cable, I don't think I would be as calm as this guy:

https://twitter.com/AstroRM/status/415955599700946944

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution. I'm amazed at how many smart people there are that seem to deactivate their critical thinking faculties when it comes to accepting faith based science.

There's nothing stopping the astronauts outside the space station during a space walk, that's why their speed relative to the space station stays the same. An astronaut during a space walk and the space station both orbit the earth at the same speed.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

If the Earth's shape was satisfactorily observed, measured, and confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt would this forum even exist?

Probably as there always ignorance in humanity

There is an incredible amount of faith involved in believing in things like the moon landing, the big bang, or Newtonian gravity.

The Big Bang are supported by the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the Newtonian gravity is incomplete and have been refined by General theory of Relativity backed by lots of evidence.

So how do you explain "space walks?" Is it that the ISS isn't moving at 17,000 mph? That, because of their proximity they appear to just float near it? Is the gravity of the ISS enough to hold an astronaut close by, instead of him being hopelessly left behind?

The astronaut have very small relative speed to the ISS inside and there was nothing that made him somehow gain speed and rapidly move away from the ISS.

I can almost buy that an astronaut inside would hold the momentum and not be affected by the sheer supposed speed of the craft, kind've like being on a fast moving train or something... but if I was anywhere outside the train, dangling by a cable, I don't think I would be as calm as this guy:

https://twitter.com/AstroRM/status/415955599700946944

Trains aren't constantly falling like the ISS and the astronauts, they are also a subject to friction where they have to keep accelerating to have constant speed, if you were outside the train and no longer touch it, you're no longer accelerating with the train meanwhile the Earth's gravity could accelerate/decelerate both the ISS and the astronaut so that they have small relative speed to each other.

[Woody]

No one except TV and movies claim anything floats in a vaccum.  The force of gravity varies with your proximity to a large source of mass/energy/momentum.  People and objects on the ISS appear float because of their orbital velocity causing it to be in a constant state of free fall.

Nature strives for equilibrium of forces and does not particularly care about the distribution of matter although it should be noted that every large scale survey of the visible universe shows the distribution of matter to be fairly even and homogenous.

So how do you explain "space walks?" Is it that the ISS isn't moving at 17,000 mph? That, because of their proximity they appear to just float near it? Is the gravity of the ISS enough to hold an astronaut close by, instead of him being hopelessly left behind?

I can almost buy that an astronaut inside would hold the momentum and not be affected by the sheer supposed speed of the craft, kind've like being on a fast moving train or something... but if I was anywhere outside the train, dangling by a cable, I don't think I would be as calm as this guy:

https://twitter.com/AstroRM/status/415955599700946944

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution. I'm amazed at how many smart people there are that seem to deactivate their critical thinking faculties when it comes to accepting faith based science.

You really need to start thinking more critically and put more thought into things you believe.

You did not think of anything being different between a space walk and stepping off a moving train?

Why can we not just get up to the speed we want in the train then shut down the engine?  Is there something keeping you at the same speed as you step off the train as it is moving?

Things will travel at in the same speed and direction until something acts on it.  You already seem to know air is made of stuff and that stuff can interact with you and cause friction slowing you down.  The of course gravity will cause you to fall.

Looking at the two situations we can say the "air" around a space craft has much less stuff in it.  So less friction, much much less friction.  In space in an orbit you would be falling.  You are falling fast enough in a trajectory that will not hit the Earth. 

So we know if a astronaut steps out of the ISS he will be falling at the same speed as the ISS.  The only concern now is friction causing him to slow down and it is by a very minuscule amount.  So minuscule that unlike the steeping off the train feeling the apparent wind either you or I would have a very hard time telling that their is anything slowing us down.

 As Jura-Glenlivet pointed:

The critical phrase here is "smart people" that is opposed to "think they're smart people", and the thing about common sense (as has probably been said) It's not that common, the fact you can't get your head around these subjects is just a hint that you are out of your depth shouting at the life guards they are pussies for having floatation boards.

Which supports what Jura-Glenivet posted.  I prefer the terms ignorant and knowledgeable over calling someone smart or dumb.  There are things I am knowledgeable about and things I am ignorant about.  Of course there is area in between.

In this case you seem vastly ignorant on the subject. Maybe something you should not be making hypothesis or theories about. I certainly would not use your knowledge on the subject matter to help shape my world view.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I wouldn't want you to, nor do I care about anything you do. But if you want to educate please do, your infinite pool of knowledge and wisdom should've ended the debate by now.

Ironic I'm being told to think more critical when literally all I do is criticize shaky concepts.

It's obvious you've been indoctrinated well into the world of Newtonian physics. But you can't say for sure that any of it applies outside of earths orbit. Of course you've never been in "space," so you can only assume that's how it works.

What exactly is my theory or hypothesis again, Eisenstein?

If it's that flat earth theory would be better discussed in a realm not ruled by self proclaimed rocket scientist google scholars like you, then I'd say im spot on.

[rabinoz]

My gripe isn't with the shape of the Earth but with the big bang.

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane, though one could argue it wouldn't make a newly symmetrical round earth either.

Can I add a bit about your first post?

Even though the ground seems pretty solid under-foot the earth is really rather plastic. In many places you don't have to go down far to reach magma. The depth of the earth's crust is only 5-70 km, with the thinnest being under the ocean basins. The deepest boreholes are a bit over 12 km (in Russia and Qatar) and were limited by high temperatures.

So we are pretty much on "rafts" of solid ground floating of near liquid rock (magma) - mind in some places it does not seem so solid. Ask those in New Zealand, Indonesia, Japan, Alaska, California and especially Peru and Chile.

So the shape of the earth will be determined largely as if if were "plastic" under the influence of gravity and rotation leading to basically an oblate ellipsoid, with some small deviations due to distribution of the landmasses.

The actual "core" of the earth is probably solid due the extreme pressure.

[Woody]

I wouldn't want you to, nor do I care about anything you do. But if you want to educate please do, your infinite pool of knowledge and wisdom should've ended the debate by now.

Ironic I'm being told to think more critical when literally all I do is criticize shaky concepts.

It's obvious you've been indoctrinated well into the world of Newtonian physics. But you can't say for sure that any of it applies outside of earths orbit. Of course you've never been in "space," so you can only assume that's how it works.

What exactly is my theory or hypothesis again, Eisenstein?

If it's that flat earth theory would be better discussed in a realm not ruled by self proclaimed rocket scientist google scholars like you, then I'd say im spot on.

I can actually argue the shape of the Earth and things like Newton's laws with very little need to use google.  I do use it to offer references or to verify data, I used it today to look up some stuff about Newton and his thoughts about aether since I was not very knowledgeable on the subject.

Air pressure drops with higher altitudes.

Air pressure is basically how compact the air is and how bunched up the stuff that makes air is.

Space is at a higher altitude than sea level.

My theory is in space the pressure is lower, their is less stuff in it than would be in the same volume of air at sea level.

I then can assume if my theory is correct that friction caused by space will be less than the friction caused at sea level.

I can and have observed planets.  I have seen the moons orbiting Jupiter and observed Venus, Mars, and Saturn through telescopes.  I have observed the moon and it's phases, watched a lunar eclipse. Watched the sun set and rise, watched container ships appear to rise and sink at the visible horizon.  All of which suggest the Earth is round.  It also suggest that Newton's Laws and gravity are in play through out space. Seems things with enough mass like to form into spherical shapes.  If mass causes gravity it would make sense that they would.

I have used predictions based on gravity like tide charts and they have been very reliable and accurate.

So moons can be observed orbiting planets.

I have a theory that if some one made something and could get it to space it could be put into an orbit.

I have another theory that if Newton's Law work on our planet they will likely work in space.  I make this theory based on not making any observations that it would not work and can not think of why they should not.  It is not like gravity acting on objects in space have not been observed.  Changing their directions and speed.  Seems to be following Newton's Laws.

Of course my theories have been made by others previously, so can not take credit for coming up with them.

You make it seem we just blindly accept stuff as fact.  I have made observations myself in going about my day to day activities, used a telescope, used binoculars to observe the ISS, use tide tables using predictions based on gravity and relative positions of the moon and sun, observed ships seem to rise or sink at the visible horizon, used celestial navigation, watched Irdium flares appear when and where they were predicted,

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane,

Being held down is a principle of density in a fluid. When you're in water you go up, because you are less dense than water. In air you go down. A guy in the 1600's decided to try to explain how the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's where we get any explanation other wise.

It's not gravity that keeps these things distant, it's electromagnetic force.

Even a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum.

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution.

The above are your hypotheses I found in this thread.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane,

Being held down is a principle of density in a fluid. When you're in water you go up, because you are less dense than water. In air you go down. A guy in the 1600's decided to try to explain how the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's where we get any explanation other wise.

It's not gravity that keeps these things distant, it's electromagnetic force.

Even a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum.

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution.

The above are your hypotheses I found in this thread.

A big bang wouldn't make a flat plane. Common sense, violent explosion/expasion couldn't make a flat plane or disc. Big bang actually doesn't account for shapes of planets, how they were formed or anything.

Are you disputing the fact that objects less dense than the medium they are in float, and more dense sink?

Are you disputing that electromagnetic force plays a significant role in bonds within an atom?

Helium balloon sinking in a vacuum.

I was wrong about space travel, you seem to insult my intelligence a lot more directly than NASA ever has.

[Lord Dave]

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane,

Being held down is a principle of density in a fluid. When you're in water you go up, because you are less dense than water. In air you go down. A guy in the 1600's decided to try to explain how the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's where we get any explanation other wise.

It's not gravity that keeps these things distant, it's electromagnetic force.

Even a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum.

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution.

The above are your hypotheses I found in this thread.

A big bang wouldn't make a flat plane. Common sense, violent explosion/expasion couldn't make a flat plane or disc. Big bang actually doesn't account for shapes of planets, how they were formed or anything.

Good thing the universe is a blob all over and the disks came later on a micro scale (compared to the big bang) due to rotational properties and gravity.

Are you disputing the fact that objects less dense than the medium they are in float, and more dense sink?

Are you disputing that electromagnetic force plays a significant role in bonds within an atom?

Helium balloon sinking in a vacuum.

I was wrong about space travel, you seem to insult my intelligence a lot more directly than NASA ever has.

None of these explain attraction over long distsnces.  Such as falling from a plane.  The electric force between the ground and you is so small, its virtually 0.

[Woody]

A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane,

Being held down is a principle of density in a fluid. When you're in water you go up, because you are less dense than water. In air you go down. A guy in the 1600's decided to try to explain how the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's where we get any explanation other wise.

It's not gravity that keeps these things distant, it's electromagnetic force.

Even a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum.

Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution.

The above are your hypotheses I found in this thread.

A big bang wouldn't make a flat plane. Common sense, violent explosion/expasion couldn't make a flat plane or disc. Big bang actually doesn't account for shapes of planets, how they were formed or anything.

Are you disputing the fact that objects less dense than the medium they are in float, and more dense sink?

Are you disputing that electromagnetic force plays a significant role in bonds within an atom?

Helium balloon sinking in a vacuum.

I was wrong about space travel, you seem to insult my intelligence a lot more directly than NASA ever has.

I just was answering what you asked. I did notice I forgot to add theories in the sentence.

What exactly is my theory or hypothesis again, Eisenstein?

I was neither stating agreement or disagreement just pointing them out since you asked me to. 

I agree in a universe with gravity or some attractive force related to mass a Big Bang would not result in the Earth being flat.  Anything with significant enough mass would form into a sphere.

If I understand the statement I quoted that you are saying it is not gravity, but me being denser than air is what makes me fall and not continuing going up when I jump then I am disagreeing.

If it is electromagnetic force holding me to the Earth and not gravity then yes I will dispute that and not electromagnetic force itself.

Already knew a helium balloon would sink in a vacuum similar to why it would rise at sea level.

Common sense as I pointed out says space travel is possible. 

Just look at the planets, and other stuff in our solar system. They are in orbits, so it stands to reason putting a man made object into orbit is possible. 

You can find videos, pictures and even go witness a launch yourself.  Rockets are able to get into the air and gain altitude.

There is no barrier between our atmosphere and space that I am aware of. 

We are capable of building submarines that can sustain the crew underwater for a long duration.  Giving them enough air, water, and food to survive. So we have the technology to make life support systems.

We have the capability to generate power for systems that need it.

If we have rockets that can gain altitude, and the technology to create life support systems, can generate power, there is not some sort of barrier and can see things orbiting other things it really seems space travel is a possibility.

[rabinoz]

A big bang wouldn't make a flat plane. Common sense, violent explosion/expasion couldn't make a flat plane or disc. Big bang actually doesn't account for shapes of planets, how they were formed or anything.

I imagine you think I'm indoctrinated (mind you I haven't a clue who by!), but here goes! 
Essentially I agree with "A big bang wouldn't make a flat plane or disc" or globe. I tried to explain my ideas (well hardly "original") in this post, so I won't repeat it: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4780.msg92315#msg92315

Are you disputing the fact that objects less dense than the medium they are in float, and more dense sink?

No, not at all. But to sink (or float for that matter), there must be some downward force on the object and the medium, that force is gravity (probably should wash my mouth out here!). An object immersed in any medium (be it air, helium or water) experiences an upward force equivalent to the weight of the medium displaced. If the "upthrust" is less than weight of the object, it sinks, otherwise it floats.

Are you disputing that electromagnetic force plays a significant role in bonds within an atom?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

I wrecked you references, but they work now. That reference goes into it more than I ever could!
No, without checking on the detail, it is true that "electrostatic forces" (not magnetic) are important in the atom, but only to "bind" the electrons to the nucleus. But, not in holding the nucleus together. The nucleus of say the oxygen atom has 8 protons and 8 neutrons "all struggling" to fly apart! It is the "strong nuclear force" that acts only at extremely close range that holds the nucleus together. Don't ask me more on this, I'd only have to look it up as you could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1UUgrALKQc

Yes, a Helium balloon would certainly sink in a vacuum! I was wondering how they would handle the balloon expanding too much.

I was wrong about space travel, you seem to insult my intelligence a lot more directly than NASA ever has.

I don't know about this, so I won't comment, but I hope I am not insulting your intelligence!
A lot of people insult others by claiming a "lack of intelligence", when if there is a problem it is probably just lack of some item of knowledge! There is a big difference.

Essentially you have not been wrong in what you claim, but bouyancy needs gravity (or equivalent) to work - that is why "the Wik" proposes Universal Acceleration. I disagree, but that's a story for another day!

Probably lots of errors so I'll add E&OE as all good contracts do (in very fine print).